Wrong. There is your mistake there. It is a process manager. It is not an init system.
Why binary logging? Who asked for that?
Log aggregation systems for well over a decade.
Why throw away POSIX
POSIX was the solution to the problem of Open Systems: how to be able to write software for a huge range of proprietary Unixes without needing extensive porting. We no longer have that problem the proprietary Unixes are almost all dead or dying.
It was "just an init system" when it was made the init system in Debian "jessie", the most recent release.
No it wasn't. There was certainly an earlier debate about which init system which ended with Debian not having to make a choice. But the debate for Jessie was about systemd dependencies most of which were not tied to init.
Please justify your version of historical determinism.
Saying X happened for reason Y isn't historical determinism it is just an assertion about historical fact. This particula
Why isn't systemd optional? It is just an init replacement, right? Why does Red Hat care which init you use? Why is systemd being tied to so many other components?
If you're asking those questions then you have absolutely no idea about the systemd project.
It's not an init daemon absorbing other parts of the system to control. It's a system control daemon which absorbed the init process.
It was never a replacement init system, many of those already exist. This was supposed to be a one-stop-shop for the complete control of every service running on the computer. By design and philosophy it is supposed to control everything.
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
Ever stop and ask why? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been going on for years, and has years more to go. This is a long term strategy.
But why?
Why has Red Hat been replacing standard Linux components with Red Hat components, when the Red Hat stuff is worse?
Why isn't systemd optional? It is just an init replacement, right? Why does Red Hat care which init you use?
Why is systemd being tied to so many other components?
Why binary logging? Who asked for that?
Why throw away POSIX, and the entire UNIX philosophy? Clearly you do not have to do that just to replace init.
Why does Red Hat instantly berate anybody who does not like systemd? Why the barrage of ad hominem attacks systemd critics?
I think there is only one logical answer to all of those questions, and it's glaringly obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's just Lennart considering how he does things like inflate insults to suggest that they are actually death threats.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. There is your mistake there. It is a process manager. It is not an init system.
Log aggregation systems for well over a decade.
POSIX was the solution to the problem of Open Systems: how to be able to write software for a huge range of proprietary Unixes without needing extensive porting. We no longer have that problem the proprietary Unixes are almost all dead or dying.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't. There was certainly an earlier debate about which init system which ended with Debian not having to make a choice. But the debate for Jessie was about systemd dependencies most of which were not tied to init.
Saying X happened for reason Y isn't historical determinism it is just an assertion about historical fact. This particula
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't systemd optional? It is just an init replacement, right? Why does Red Hat care which init you use?
Why is systemd being tied to so many other components?
If you're asking those questions then you have absolutely no idea about the systemd project.
It's not an init daemon absorbing other parts of the system to control.
It's a system control daemon which absorbed the init process.
It was never a replacement init system, many of those already exist. This was supposed to be a one-stop-shop for the complete control of every service running on the computer. By design and philosophy it is supposed to control everything.